Newt Gingrich seems to be taking a line far to the right of the appalling Benjamin Netanyahu's on the Middle East 'peace process'. He thinks the Palestinians are an 'imaginary nation' and have no right to statehood. Until now he has looked fairly convincing as a Republican presidential candidate, anyway by current standards in the Ghastly Old Party.
Not even in America, surely?
Surely?
|
Never underestimate the power of redneck politics.
|
>> Never underestimate the power of redneck politics.
There are all too many of those savages in the US, but are they really a 'moral majority'? One has to remember that the voters are really only part of the story. There are very important powers that be that don't vote directly but have great subterranean influence.
Perhaps Gingrich doesn't really want to be candidate or to become president if he is the candidate. Would you after all? Would anyone in their right mind?
|
When Spiro Agnew ran for vice-president alongside Richard Nixon in 1969 the Democrats paid for joke TV ads, along the lines of 'come in Spiro Agnew, your new name is ready'.
I wonder if they'll stoop to the same tactics if Newt Gingrich gets the GOP nomination?
I once heard Gingrich's mother in a TV interview refer to him as 'Newty'.
|
Spiro Agnew is an anagram of 'grow a penis'.
|
>> There are all too many of those savages in the US, but are they really
>> a 'moral majority'?
I remember someone - forgotten who - pointing out that the 'moral majority' are neither moral, nor a majority.
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 10 Dec 11 at 20:51
|
If he thinks the Palestinians are an imaginary nation, logicically he must think that Israel is one too.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 10 Dec 11 at 18:12
|
|
Shirley you realise that Newt is sounding orf for the sole benefit of the jewish lobby.
|
I just heard a profile of Gingrich on the wireless while fetching the fish and chips.
Very smart operator. Said to identify "magnets", policies that attract voters of all inclinations, and "wedges", policies of his adversaries that he can turn against them - a "marketing" approach that has apparently worked well for him despite a reported lack of charisma.
|
You can see the headlines now
"NEWT NUKES EYE-RAQ"
"Thought it was Eye-ran"
|
...while fetching the fish and chips...
Cod, or something more sustainable?
|
|
Makes his newt and chips wrapper an SSI then. No-one is allowed to touch it or build on it.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 10 Dec 11 at 20:49
|
|
Cod - for once. Standard in these parts. Usually have haddock. Should I be avoiding cod? Or both?
|
|
I don't think they sell pollocks. There was a chap asking for "rock" which is unknown to me as a Yorkshireman. I've just looked it up on Wiki which says it's dogfish and also endangered! I've never had any so they can't pin that one on me.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 10 Dec 11 at 21:00
|
>>There was a chap asking for "rock" which is unknown to me as a Yorkshireman.
>>
I thought Rock Salmon had more recently been refer to as Huss.
I now read on Wiki
"Rock salmon refers to either of two kinds of fish:
The first, also called rock eel, flake, and huss in the UK, is any one of many species of small shark, including the spiny dogfish or the bull huss.
Well that clears up my confusion.
.
|
|
And delicious they are too.
|
>> Shirley you realise that Newt is sounding orf for the sole benefit of the jewish lobby.
You miss the point perro. They all have to suck up to the Israeli lobby (which isn't exclusively Jewish or supported by all Jews).
The point is that our Newty appears to have espoused a position so extreme that only the most demented sabre-toothed prats in the new settlements could buy it. That won't go down well with mainstream rational Jewish opinion, even at the hard-line end of Israeli politics.
|
|
So what's he at then AC? He doesn't sound stupid?
|
>> So what's he at then AC?
Mystery to me.
None of these people are stupid. What they are is pretty awful, and pretty incomprehensible to a simple person. On that basis I am quite a simple person.
|
|
I sincerely hope I live to see the day that Israel is made to suffer at least half as much as they have made the Palestinians suffer this last 60 or so years.
|
|
That's an unpleasant sentiment, Dog. You surprise me.
|
|
That is truly the way I feel towards Israel, Manatee, having studied the situation there for decades now, and if I as a white English cockney sparrow think like that towards them, God only knows what their many enemies that surround Israel must think.
|
...That is truly the way I feel towards Israel, Manatee, having studied the situation there for decades now...
I haven't, but the way in which pro-Israelis put there point over is clever.
They seem able to include it in any topic in an insidious, drip-drip way.
Lots of Jews high up in business and the professions, which gives them a platform.
And if you disagree, you are immediately branded a Nazi.
No one likes to be disagreed with, but if a person disagrees with me, I just think him stupid, I don't attempt to portray him as a monster.
Members may remember Espada - he was very good at including a pro-Israeli snippet in threads which had nothing to do with Israel.
Espada flounced after the old Dog showed he had a bit of terrier in him and wouldn't let go.
To be fair, I don't recall Espada resorting to name-calling, but he couldn't deal with someone who held a different point of view.
|
|
Newt Gingrich = Wrenching Git!
|
Iffy said:-
>> if a person disagrees with me, I>> just think him stupid,
>> Espada ........ couldn't deal with>> someone who held a different point of view.
Therefore the difference between you and he is; er, what, precisely?
Last edited by: Duncan on Sun 11 Dec 11 at 09:33
|
There are some very unpleasant overtones in your post as well Iffy. Rather than give you a red face, which you richly deserve for that post, I will tell you that openly.
I don't pretend to understand all points of view, or have a complete knowledge of everything that has happened (nor can anyone - all accounts are slanted one way or the other).
Broadly, it seems to me that Israel is more committed to a two state solution than the Palestinians. Even if the Palestinians can get over the Fatah/Hammas split, which prevents them even governing themselves, many Israelis remain sceptical that any agreement would hold, given the desire of many Palestinians to destroy Israel entirely, which perhaps you have forgotten.
Neither do the Israelis (understandably given what happened there between 1948 and 1967 under Jordanian rule) have any confidence that Jewish religious sites in East Jerusalem would be protected or accessible to them.
To characterise Israel as evil is simply wrong, and certainly not conducive to any sort of resolution.
I would be very happy for the mods to remove all the posts relating to this drift.
|
Manatee,
I purposefully started the post by saying I know nothing about Israel.
The post was entirely and only aimed at how each side puts their case across - the PR side of things, which as you know is a professional interest of mine.
Duncan,
The difference is I don't characterise someone who disagrees with me as evil, which I've noticed pro-Israelis do about those who take the Palestinian point of view.
|
>> Manatee,
...
>> The post was entirely and only aimed at how each side puts their case across
>> - the PR side of things, which as you know is a professional interest of
>> mine.
Iffy, you are a wordsmith. You know what "insidious" means, and it is not nice.
...
>> The difference is I don't characterise someone who disagrees with me as evil, which I've
>> noticed pro-Israelis do about those who take the Palestinian point of view.
It seems to me to be Israel that is being characterised as evil here, not the other way round.
Both protagonists in this conflict have much to be ashamed of.
|
...Iffy, you are a wordsmith. You know what "insidious" means, and it is not nice...
All I meant was pro-Israelis put their (got that right, this time) point over in a sly or crafty way.
To re-iterate, I make no comment about the point itself.
But your posts illustrate another characteristic.
Pro-Israelis see anti-Israeli sentiment where there is none.
|
>>All I meant was pro-Israelis put their (got that right, this time) point over in a sly or crafty way.
There you go again...
Do you really think that pro-Israelis have a different way of promoting their opinions from everybody else? That's just not credible.
I really think it is your viewpoint that is the problem.
>>But your posts illustrate another characteristic.
>>Pro-Israelis see anti-Israeli sentiment where there is none.
I am pro a solution; I am neither Israeli nor Jewish. I just see anti-Israeli sentiment in your remarks and language.
I have been to Jerusalem twice. I recommend it. Maybe that has coloured my view in that I see neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinian Arabs (200,000 of whom live apparently peacefully in Jerusalem) as monsters.
BTW, I think Gingrich's remarks are appalling. Most Israelis think a Palestinian state is the right objective. Their basic position as I understand it is still "land for peace".
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 11 Dec 11 at 12:20
|
There are problematic radicals on both sides. The problem is that, due to the fractured state of Israeli party politics, the Jewish radicals have some sway in national policy. Its exacerbated by American radical Jewish groups and their available monetary sources. This is not conducive to national peace and stability, nor in the long run Jewish homeland security.
>> I have been to Jerusalem twice. I recommend it. Maybe that has coloured my view
>> in that I see neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinian Arabs (200,000 of whom live apparently
>> peacefully in Jerusalem) as monsters.
There seems to be a tendency for Israelis to look upon their "peaceful Palestinians" the same the way the Americans did about their Indians in reservations, or the Australians about their "Abbos" Its a really quite an abhorrent form of racism,
>> BTW, I think Gingrich's remarks are appalling. Most Israelis think a Palestinian state is the
>> right objective. Their basic position as I understand it is still "land for peace".
American right wingers scare me. The mix of ignorance and power is frightening.
|
For the most part I am in violent agreement with Zero, save that I don't think you can link everything (or much) that happens now directly to the 1948 declaration.
>> There are problematic radicals on both sides. The problem is that, due to the fractured
>> state of Israeli party politics, the Jewish radicals have some sway in national policy. Its
>> exacerbated by American radical Jewish groups and their available monetary sources. This is not conducive
>> to national peace and stability, nor in the long run Jewish homeland security.
True. Neither does Hamas's declared objective of destroying Israel, and the fact that most Arab states do not even recognise Israel as a state leave much room for compromise.
>> There seems to be a tendency for Israelis to look upon their "peaceful Palestinians" the
>> same the way the Americans did about their Indians in reservations, or the Australians about their "Abbos" Its a really quite an abhorrent form of racism,
I hadn't detected that in relation to Israel, but I'll take your word for it. The treatment of native Americans and Australians has indeed been nauseating. For what it was worth the Israeli declaration of independence appealed
"... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."
The Arab states invaded the next day.
|
...Do you really think that pro-Israelis have a different way of promoting their opinions from everybody else?...
I imagine campaigners on other issues use the same tactic.
None immediately spring to mind, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
If I say to a pro-Israeli: "I'm not interested in your dispute with the Palestinians," I am automatically branded as being anti-Israeli.
It's what's happening here, I have said several times I make no comment about the issue itself, but you keep saying that equates to 'anti-Israeli sentiment'.
It doesn't.
|
>>
>> Neither do the Israelis (understandably given what happened there between 1948 and 1967 under Jordanian
>> rule) have any confidence that Jewish religious sites in East Jerusalem would be protected or
>> accessible to them.
You have to bear in mind that Israel was an illegal state. It arrived there, by force and terrorism, on top of the Palestinians..
Everything that happens there now is the result of that illegal action.
|
|
With two root causes - The Balfour Declaration and the Battle of the Marne, you could say pivotal moments.
|
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
Opps - failed
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 11 Dec 11 at 11:08
|
|
Exactly. Another British mess. The Marne was actually a victory for the allies - it effectively stopped the Germans in their tracks. If the Germans had won they would have occupied France - the Great War's outcome would have been so different that Hitler would have never been anybody of consequence so the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. The Holocaust was a driving force for the Israeli state in one shape or another...that's one reason why historians view a relatively minor battle as the most important of the last millennium.
|
>> Everything that happens there now is the result of that illegal action.
And how long will you attribute every problem to one specific event? A meaningless statement if there ever was one. You might as well say it all flows from British rule in Palestine, during which both Arabs and Jews had been promised an independent state. Or any number of other events.
The point is that there is any number of arguments as to why all parties are being utterly unreasonable, depending which starting point you choose.
Just as with NI, it won't be solved by either side agreeing the other is right. They are both right, because they think they are. They can only agree on what they do from that point on.
Why do people persistently argue the rights and wrongs as if it leads to a solution?
I was involved in a legal mediation a while back. The first thing that struck me was that the mediator (an experienced QC with 20 or so mediations behind him) didn't give a toss about the rights and wrongs - only what could be agreed on.
|
(an experienced QC with 20 or so mediations behind him) didn't give a toss about the rights and wrongs - only what could be agreed on.
And maybe that is the way ahead...
|
>> >> Everything that happens there now is the result of that illegal action.
>>
>> And how long will you attribute every problem to one specific event? A meaningless statement
>> if there ever was one. You might as well say it all flows from British
>> rule in Palestine, during which both Arabs and Jews had been promised an independent state.
>> Or any number of other events.
No its not meaningless, not by a long long way. In the history of nations time-scales its really modern stuff - being of current and recent history, it makes up a lot of people attitudes on both sides.
>> The point is that there is any number of arguments as to why all parties
>> are being utterly unreasonable, depending which starting point you choose.
The starting point matters, because its recent, its like yesterday. People who were involved at the start are still alive, their immediate sons and daughters are still alive and making policy based on that recent memory
>> Just as with NI, it won't be solved by either side agreeing the other is
>> right. They are both right, because they think they are. They can only agree on
>> what they do from that point on.
>>
>> Why do people persistently argue the rights and wrongs as if it leads to a
>> solution?
Because until that pain goes away there will not be a solution. The pain wont go away while its still a current memory (or in the case of the NI protestants, the ability to keep it a current memory by constantly celebrating and harping on about 300 year old battles)
>> I was involved in a legal mediation a while back. The first thing that struck
>> me was that the mediator (an experienced QC with 20 or so mediations behind him)
>> didn't give a toss about the rights and wrongs - only what could be agreed
>> on.
Because he is not involved, and has no interest one way or the other in the eventual outcome.
|
Interesting book review.
I'm inclined to order the book, but I have too much to read already.
A History of the First Arab-Israeli War by Benny Morris.
www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/books/review/Margolick-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=review
|
>> Espada flounced after the old Dog showed he had a bit of terrier in him and wouldn't let go.
In typical court-reporter fashion, Iffy, you have got it slightly wrong. Dog has strong feelings about the injustice side of Israel-Palestine, resulting in a discourse that can fairly easily be interpreted as anti-Semitic. That sort of thing is grist to the mill of any Zionist ideologue.
What Espada really couldn't handle was the dissection, the cold separation, of a critical attitude to Israeli foreign and security policy from a general racist anti-Semitism, and the established fact that a) not all Jews inside or outside Israel support these policies and b) the most devastating and furious criticism of these policies tends to come from Israeli Jewish intellectuals.
|
>>Dog has strong feelings about the injustice side of Israel-Palestine, resulting in a discourse that can fairly easily be interpreted as anti-Semitic<<
Shouldn't that read misinterpreted?
For 'the record', I'm not anti-Semitic at all, no more than I am anti-Sinhalese for the way they massacred the Tamils in 2009,
Neither am I anti-Christian for the way the US and the UK murdered Iraqi's in the Bush/Blair wars,
But yes, I am anti-injustice in this world, especially when it costs so many lives.
|
I thought Espada's last post (made as it happens more or less from the Egyptian border crossing) was pretty restrained.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=5105&m=112332
|
Take it easy Perro, it's obvious you're not a nazi groupie or anything of the sort and I didn't suggest you were.
But these minefield-like fraught issues demand very careful choice of words if you want to avoid being accused (very often in bad faith of course) of some form of bigotry. One obvious example is treating 'Israeli' and 'Jewish' as being more or less synonymous. They aren't, but it's an easy elision to make and a lot of people make it.
The 'Middle East conflict' has been going on for a long time now, and hasn't got any simpler since we British and the French left the region with a hastily-sellotaped bodged set of arrangements, already giving much trouble, in the fifties. We British did a similar cock-up with Indian partition.
The subsequent ministrations of very clever and very stupid and very wicked and very well-meaning cartloads of goddam monkeys both in the region and elsewhere haven't helped.
So it's a minefield, one that may yet do for us all, bad cess to it.
|
We British did a similar cock-up with Indian partition.
I was going to recommend a rather good little programme that was broadcast this lunchtime...damn it here it is. Brilliant thanks R4.
www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0183r3l/The_Blood_Telegram/
|
>> We British did a similar cock-up with Indian partition.
And parts of Africa, And Iraq, and and and.
|
>> and and and.
No need to go scraping the bottom of the smelly old end-of-Empire barrel, Jersey, Guernsey, Rutland, Sark, parts of Surrey, Broadwater Farm, Ireland, traveller sites... honestly Zeddo if we didn't know you better we might suspect you of falling into the masochistic guilty whinge-trap...
Middle East and India, those are the global scale life-threatening ones, the heavy sugar.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 11 Dec 11 at 20:04
|
|
And we need to bear in mind that imperialism is not new, and not restricted to Anglo-Saxons. It's the temporal proximity of Empire, in our case, that obscures earlier, failed, empire building adventures. Guilt? Not much, given the human nature. Winner takes all.
|
>> And we need to bear in mind that imperialism is not new, and not restricted
>> to Anglo-Saxons. It's the temporal proximity of Empire, in our case, that obscures earlier, failed,
>> empire building adventures.
Yeah, but we are living with the outfall from the cockups of the last lot.
After all, what did the romans ever do for us?
|
>>After all, what did the romans ever do for us?
Ask the Judean Peoples' Front.
Or is it the Peoples Front of Judea?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso
|
Newt stuffs it - Ian (Cape Town)
